This invention relates to a process for the separation of ethane and heavier hydrocarbons or propane and heavier hydrocarbons from liquefied natural gas, hereinafter referred to as LNG, to provide a volatile methane-rich lean LNG stream and a less volatile natural gas liquids (NGL) or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stream. The applicants claim the benefits under Title 35, United States Code, Section 119(e) of prior U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 60/584,668 which was filed on Jul. 1, 2004, 60/646,903 which was filed on Jan. 24, 2005, Ser. No. 60/669,642 which was filed on Apr. 8, 2005, and Ser. No. 60/671,930 which was filed on Apr. 15, 2005.
As an alternative to transportation in pipelines, natural gas at remote locations is sometimes liquefied and transported in special LNG tankers to appropriate LNG receiving and storage terminals. The LNG can then be re-vaporized and used as a gaseous fuel in the same fashion as natural gas. Although LNG usually has a major proportion of methane, i.e., methane comprises at least 50 mole percent of the LNG, it also contains relatively lesser amounts of heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, butanes, and the like, as well as nitrogen. It is often necessary to separate some or all of the heavier hydrocarbons from the methane in the LNG so that the gaseous fuel resulting from vaporizing the LNG conforms to pipeline specifications for heating value. In addition, it is often also desirable to separate the heavier hydrocarbons from the methane because these hydrocarbons have a higher value as liquid products (for use as petrochemical feedstocks, as an example) than their value as fuel.
Although there are many processes which may be used to separate ethane and heavier hydrocarbons from LNG, these processes often must compromise between high recovery, low utility costs, and process simplicity (and hence low capital investment). U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,952,984; 3,837,172; and 5,114,451 and co-pending application Ser. No. 10/675,785 describe relevant LNG processes capable of ethane or propane recovery while producing the lean LNG as a vapor stream that is thereafter compressed to delivery pressure to enter a gas distribution network. However, lower utility costs may be possible if the lean LNG is instead produced as a liquid stream that can be pumped (rather than compressed) to the delivery pressure of the gas distribution network, with the lean LNG subsequently vaporized using a low level source of external heat or other means. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0158458 A1 describes such a process.
The present invention is generally concerned with the recovery of ethylene, ethane, propylene, propane, and heavier hydrocarbons from such LNG streams. It uses a novel process arrangement to allow high ethane or high propane recovery while keeping the processing equipment simple and the capital investment low. Further, the present invention offers a reduction in the utilities (power and heat) required to process the LNG to give lower operating cost than the prior art processes. A typical analysis of an LNG stream to be processed in accordance with this invention would be, in approximate mole percent, 86.7% methane, 8.9% ethane and other C2 components, 2.9% propane and other C3 components, and 1.0% butanes plus, with the balance made up of nitrogen.
In the following explanation of the above figures, tables are provided summarizing flow rates calculated for representative process conditions. In the tables appearing herein, the values for flow rates (in moles per hour) have been rounded to the nearest whole number for convenience. The total stream rates shown in the tables include all non-hydrocarbon components and hence are generally larger than the sum of the stream flow rates for the hydrocarbon components. Temperatures indicated are approximate values rounded to the nearest degree. It should also be noted that the process design calculations performed for the purpose of comparing the processes depicted in the figures are based on the assumption of no heat leak from (or to) the surroundings to (or from) the process. The quality of commercially available insulating materials makes this a very reasonable assumption and one that is typically made by those skilled in the art.
For convenience, process parameters are reported in both the traditional British units and in the units of the Système International d'Unités (SI). The molar flow rates given in the tables may be interpreted as either pound moles per hour or kilogram moles per hour. The energy consumptions reported as horsepower (HP) and/or thousand British Thermal Units per hour (MBTU/Hr) correspond to the stated molar flow rates in pound moles per hour. The energy consumptions reported as kilowatts (kW) correspond to the stated molar flow rates in kilogram moles per hour.